An effective infrastructure asset management plan requires the ability to measure current condition and predict the future condition for a wide variety of individual building components. Then, repair and replacement strategies can be applied for a building component before failure or breakdown occurs, avoiding chaotic budgeting and inopportune downtimes.
To maximize the efficiency of an asset management plan, it is essential to minimize expense due to delayed or overlooked maintenance. This requires scheduling inspections, preventive maintenance and repairs to occur at the appropriate time in the lifecycle of a building component. That is, maintenance, upgrades, and major and minor repair should occur before the condition deterioration of the component accelerates and resultant costs increase exponentially.
Thus, it is important to know the condition of assets down to the building component-section level, and the rate at which that condition deteriorates. Some engineering management systems (EMS) quantitatively measure component-section condition. An example of an EMS for automated quantitative condition measurement is BUILDER®. BUILDER® computes a condition index (CI) value for each component-section based on an objective condition assessment process, e.g., one or more inspections. This information can be used in establishing a dynamic, or “self-correcting,” mathematical relationship between the CI and service life for a component-section, thus mathematically modeling condition deterioration trends using the most recent inspection data available.
Embodiments of the present invention may be used to complement an EMS such as BUILDER®. BUILDER® is under continuing development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at its Engineering Research and Development Center-Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL) in Champaign, Ill.
BUILDER® combines engineering, architectural, and management methods and processes with data base management software to provide quantitatively based facility performance measures. BUILDER® provides engineers and facility managers with an automated tool to support decisions regarding what, when, where, and how best to maintain buildings.
BUILDER® consists of three interrelated activities: data collection in the field; data entry into a database management system and other data management activity; and manipulation of the resultant database for decision support. BUILDER® supports: assessing condition objectively, establishing minimum acceptable condition criteria, budgeting, exploring “What if” scenarios, prioritizing work, developing annual work plans, monitoring contractor performance, establishing a condition history, and scheduling re-inspection. BUILDER® also accommodates automating the presentation of data to decision makers in briefings and reports.
BUILDER® provides outputs such as: automated inspection procedures and schedules, benefit analyses, budget optimization analyses, and engineering analyses, all with enhanced graphics for presentation to decision makers. Because BUILDER® uses a standard database software program, it interfaces easily with other EMS programs using the same or compatible database software developed by ERDC-CERL. These other EMS programs include ROOFER®, PAVER™, PIPER™, RAILER™ and like programs covering facilities one is likely to see on a major military installation or in any city.
BUILDER® uses as its primary condition metric a condition index (CI) rating on a scale of 0-100. The CI for a component-section is computed from inspection data that records the type, severity, and density of each discovered “problem” or “anomaly” (termed “distress” in BUILDER®). Empirically developed deterioration curves (termed lifecycle condition curves in select embodiments of the present invention) show the optimal point at which maintenance work should be done to avoid costly rehabilitation or premature replacement.
With the assistance of the IMPACT™ simulation program included with BUILDER®, facility managers can develop long-range work plans based on a sound investment strategy. By providing an objective description of condition and an automated means of exploring various options under different budget scenarios, BUILDERS® and IMPACT™ together facilitate formulating multi-year work plans and quantifiably justifying funding requests.
The current version of BUILDER®, version 2.2, was released in December 2003. A new version of BUILDER®, version 3.0, is under development with many enhanced features. One such feature is the use of more sophisticated component condition prediction models as described in this patent. BUILDER® version 3.0 will have the enhanced ability to project condition degradation trends for individual components and families of similar components.
Although BUILDER® was developed for military installations, it may be used by any organization that has facility management responsibilities. There are new features and program enhancements in BUILDER® that improve the user interface and advance the science of building asset management. A list of the most significant enhancements is provided below.
BUILDER® Stand-Alone Remote Entry Database (RED) has been improved for greater ease of use while in the field. These enhancements translate into significant speed and accuracy improvements during the inventory and condition survey inspection (CSI) collection process.
BUILDING COPY and BUILDING TEMPLATES are significant features. The one-time collection of building data is the most costly phase in BUILDER® implementation. As a result, BUILDER® v.2.2 has added features to facilitate this process. When a group of buildings are identical or nearly identical and all built around the same time, the “BUILDING COPY” feature is a useful tool. It allows collecting the inventory for one building and copying it to describe other similar buildings. This bypasses the need to inventory each like building separately. In addition, for a “typical” building, i.e., one not identical to other buildings in your portfolio but basically alike, a “BUILDING TEMPLATE” may be created for that building type. For all buildings of the same type a system inventory may be completed from that template. Inventory quantities may be scaled according to building size and the current template may be adjusted to ±10%. Each “component-section” of the building is initially dated automatically to the year of construction of the building. Multiple such templates may be created and stored in an e-library.
The feature Installation Date Estimation has been enhanced. In BUILDER® v.2.2, the assumption is made that component-sections are replaced after a reasonable expected (predicted) lifecycle. Version 2.2 compares the age of the building to the Expected Service Life of the component-section to develop an accurate default value for the installation date. This feature facilitates quickly creating a mathematical inventory model. When BUILDERS® automatically creates the system inventory, the estimated age of each component-section is developed from current data, yielding accurate projections of condition.
The feature Estimation Date Check Box in BUILDER® v.2.2 also recognizes that many times the installation date for many component-sections is unknown. A check box is used to flag such instances. When checked, the installation date is displayed with a yellow background, indicating an estimate. Estimated dates are also denoted on the system inventory report to alert of the need to verify installation dates.
The feature Distress CSI with Quantities is enhanced. In addition to choosing an estimated range for the affected distress density, BUILDERS® v.2.2 allows the option of entering the quantity of measured component-sections and affected distress quantity. BUILDER® v.2.2 then calculates an appropriate density range from this input. For large samples, this feature provides an accurate estimate of the affected quantity. In addition, it provides quantitative information about a given distress for planning scope of repair or replacement work.
The feature Project Creation has been added. With previous versions of BUILDER®, the component-section is the fundamental “management unit.” While also true for v.2.1, in BUILDER® v.2.2 component-section work items may be combined for management as a single project. Thus, the project planning, funding, execution, and completion of these work items may be controlled under a single project. These projects are prioritized and ranked and compete for funding with other items in the work plan list.
The feature Automatic Inventory/Inspection Updates has been added. As work is denoted, as completed in BUILDER® v.2.2, inventory and inspection records are automatically updated. This includes updating the year installed, material/equipment category and component-section type and quantity in the inventory if a component-section is replaced. Automatic inspection dates are scheduled to reflect the improvement in condition when items are replaced, repaired, or painted.
The feature Fiscal Start Date Configuration has been added. BUILDER® v.2.2 allows for a fiscal year start date. This date is used by IMPACT™ to estimate completion dates for both existing line items and evaluation of new work items.
The IMPACT™ program has been released in v.1.1. Some of the key enhancements of v.1.1 are discussed below.
System Selection for IMPACT™ Simulation has been added. IMPACT™ v.1.1 permits defining the scope of an IMPACT™ scenario for selected systems. Thus, for example, separate work plans for Roofing, HVAC, or interior work may be created. By running simulations for only select systems, the processing time for IMPACT™ simulation is decreased.
The feature Building Status Changes has been added. IMPACT™ identifies building status changes that will take place within the horizon of a scenario. For example, if a building is scheduled to be demolished within the time frame of a multi-year simulation, IMPACT™ v.1.1 recognizes the status change and applies a different standard level to the building so as not to budget money for renovation as it nears demolition.
The feature Adding Buildings During an IMPACT™ Scenario has been added. IMPACT™ v.1.1 permits identifying when a new building footprint enters inventory. These new buildings are entered automatically into the simulation and compete for funding with existing inventory.
The BUILDER® facility management hierarchy is designed so that the constituent building components, one of such being air conditioners, for example, are grouped and classified into systems, one of such being HVAC. These systems are the major parts of the building. A component-section further divides components based on characteristics such as material, type, age, and location within the building. For example, a wall (component) may be constructed of component-sections of masonry or wood. The different materials have different responses to their environment over time, and require different work actions at different stages in their lifecycle. Each component-section works interdependently with other component-sections to support the functions of an efficiently operating facility. As these component-sections age in use, their condition may also deteriorate. This deterioration has an effect on the performance and reliability of the component-section to serve its purpose (mission). If left in service sufficiently long, the condition reaches some limit, or failure state, at which the component-section is no longer serving its function adequately. This may adversely affect the function or condition of other component-sections. Certain component-sections, such as structural columns, have a service life designed to correspond to the life of the facility. Other component-sections, such as a roof surface, have a projected lifespan much shorter than the life of the facility. For the latter type, periodic repair or replacement of the component-section is needed to restore it. Depending on the criticality of the component-section, this corrective action is best performed at or before reaching failure.
However, predicting this failure state for a unique component-section as used in a specific building is difficult because the actual lifespan of a component-section is rarely known a priori. While a designer or manufacturer may provide an estimate of component life, actual life depends on local environmental factors, use and abuse, levels of routine maintenance accomplished, and the like. In addition, for many component-sections, simply defining what constitutes a failure state can sometimes be ambiguous. For instance, does a window component-section fail when the vapor barrier is breached, when it is no longer operable, when a windowpane breaks, or some other criteria? Thus, failure state could have a different meaning for different component-sections and to different people. Therefore, defining a quantitative failure state based on an objective CI provides a consistent definition of failure state.
The failure state is rarely the most efficient point in the lifecycle of a component-section to perform corrective action. For many component-sections, maintenance, upgrade, or repair early in the lifecycle extends life, avoiding expensive damage caused by accelerated deterioration later. The theoretical point at which minor corrective action is most efficient is termed the “sweet spot” in the lifecycle. Performing maintenance or repairs at the sweet spot results in cost savings as compared to major repair or replacement later in the lifecycle.
Each component-section has a unique actual lifecycle, although like component sections may be grouped and any given component-section in the group given a mathematically estimated “likely” or “predicted” lifecycle based on a calculated average for use in “average” installations and average conditions. However, a component-section may perform to a certain level in a given building while a like component-section in a second building performs differently. This is because variables affecting the condition of the component-section are not of the same combination and amount in the two buildings. Variables include original construction quality, environmental and climatic effects, normal aging, excessive or abusive use, scheduled maintenance and performance thereof, and the like. This variability includes not just the component-section in question, but also interrelating component-sections and systems. Thus, any mathematical condition lifecycle model must be sensitive to this uniqueness. The resulting mathematically modeled condition lifecycle curve (CI vs. time) must be dynamic, i.e., “self-correcting,” as additional specific condition assessment data for the component-section are entered into the mathematical model.
Proactive asset management requires accurate accounting and assessment of infrastructure and the development of a plan for renewal and replacement. An important part involves planning for timely corrective action before deterioration impacts both the budget and the mission. Therefore, to efficiently and objectively manage the repair and replacement of an asset, prediction of its condition state throughout its lifecycle, i.e., condition lifecycle, is required. Condition assessment, condition prediction, work requirements analysis, and prioritization are all important in this new environment. In select embodiments of the present invention, dynamic (or “self-correcting”) condition lifecycle mathematical modeling procedures improve asset management by providing a tool for prediction via mathematical relationships that are based in part on the results of actual inspection data.